The U.S. Supreme Court has let stand an appellate
court ruling that immunizes agents of the federal
government who kidnap people and deliver them into the
clutches of foreign dictators for the purpose of
torture. The case is Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan
Inc.

The appellate court's rationale for summarily
dismissing the suit brought by five kidnap victims who
were brutally tortured? The state-secrecy doctrine, a
doctrine that the Supreme Court, not Congress,
created, one that permits the government to have
lawsuits against its agents dismissed based on the
simple claim that "national security" would be
threatened by the release of secret information
surrounding the kidnapping, rendition, and torture of
the plaintiffs.

That's where we are in America today. We now live
under a government that wields the omnipotent power to
arbitrarily seize people without a warrant, put them
on a plane, and send him to some U.S.-supported
dictator to be tortured. And the victims are precluded
from suing for what was done to them because national
security will supposedly be threatened if people find
out what exactly was done to the victims.

One of the five plaintiffs in the case, Binyam
Mohamed, was sent to Morocco, whose government torture
goons cut his penis with a scalpel and then poured a
hot stinging liquid into the wound. Nice! But Mohamed
can't sue because we've got to keep these things
secret. Hey, national security is at stake! We've got
to be kept safe! Just think: If the terrorists were to
find out all the details on how Mohamed was tortured,
that would enable them to come to America and invade
and occupy our country.

What will U.S. officials say if one of those five
plaintiffs, having been denied access to the courts,
decides to exact revenge with a terrorist strike?
They'll say what they always say, "It's not because we
kidnapped and tortured him and it's not because we
closed the courthouse doors to him. It's all because
he hates America for its freedom and values."

Given the immunity that the courts have now
extended to the perpetrators of these crimes, their
power to kidnap, rendition, and torture people is now
as omnipotent as the powers being wielded by the
Middle East tyrants who are ever-ready to torture
people for their benefactor and partner, the U.S.
government.

Why did the Supreme Court refuse to take up the
matter? My hunch is that the Court knows that the
president wouldn't comply with an adverse ruling
anyway. After all, since the president freely ignores
the Constitution and congressional laws in foreign
affairs with impunity (e.g., declaration of law
requirement and the War Powers Act), the chance that
the president would comply with a judicial ruling that
would interfere with his power to kidnap and torture
people as part of the much-vaunted "war on terrorism"
is nil.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of the
Future of Freedom Foundation.